Two Studies on inclusion

Benefits and Risks of Reverse Inclusion for Preschoolers with and without Disabilities: Perspectives of Parents and Providers
Rafferty & Griffin

Study design: This research design consists of surveys given to teachers and related service providers in a reverse inclusion preschool program and the parents of the preschoolers (with and without disabilities) in the program.

Participants/sample: 118 teachers and related service providers working on private, community-based reverse inclusion preschool program. Also 161 parents of preschoolers with disabilities and 76 parents of preschoolers who are typically developing in the same program were part of the sample (383 surveys went home to parents, only 237 returned the surveys).

Data collection methods: The researchers gave an envelope with a survey, a return envelope, and a cover letter to each teacher and related service providers. Then the same survey, with return envelope and cover letter were sent home to all parents. A reminder package was sent 2 weeks later. Two scales were developed for the survey. The participants reported to the extent they agreed or disagreed with each item.

Data analysis: The researchers used Analysis of variance techniques to compare the total mean score of the teachers/providers to the parent groups on each attitude measure. Analysis of variance techniques were also used to examine attitudes towards inclusion by job category. Chi-square tests were used to compare providers’ and parents’ attitudes for hypothetical children with various types of disabilities and severity. Zero-order correlations between demographic characteristics of providers and their scores on each attitude were presented.

Conclusions: Parents and providers are concerned about staff training and adequacy of resources. Also providers should be concerned about what the parents concerns about inclusion and address them. Increase the knowledge of staff to work with certain students is wanted. Information on effective inclusion practices to the providers. For an inclusion program to be supportive of both students with special needs and students without the program quality needs to be acceptable and appropriate services are being provided.

The conclusions are valid for this particular program. If the sampling group was bigger and the location was not just one specific program (suburban area in New York State) there may have been different answers. This study would be able to be more generalize to all reverse inclusion settings. This seems to be a very large reverse inclusion program and they received a good response. It would be interested to see responses from other reverse inclusion programs in different states.

Elements of Successful Inclusion for Children with Significant Disablities
Cross, Traub, Hutter-Pishgahi, & Shelton

Study design: Qualitative research design, this study took place over a long period of time (2 to 6 months to collect data for each site). The researchers were flexible and it took place in the participants’ natural environment. Detailed interviews and follow-ups also occurred with this study.

Participants/sample: 7 young children who meet the criteria had been identified. Parents and providers were interesting in participating in the study; a researcher went out to the setting to confirm it would meet the criteria for the study. The participants are the providers who provide services, supports, and education to the 7 students with disabilities. 43 interviews took place with therapists, ECSE/ECE teaching staff, and family members.

Data collection methods: Interviews, observations of the normal routines, and written records. Each researcher took sole responsibility for one or more sites. Interview included open-ended questions and probes, and lasted between 45-90 minutes. Each interview was tape-recorded or documented with hand-written notes. Interviews were also followed-up with phone calls, emails, and site visits. 3 to 5 observations took place for each child, at each site. The observations were about 2 hours long. There was no interaction with the researcher during the observations. Data collected varied by setting. Data collection included IEP/IFSP goals, outcomes, and accommodations, parent-provider communication books, posted notes in classroom, and program descriptions. The data collection was photocopied or documented in hand written notes.

Data analysis: The researchers used coding, data display, and pattern coding to analysis their data. They used data triangulation and investigator triangulation. They used 3 stages to analysis the data. The first stage was meeting of the research team to review coding strategies, emerging clumps of data, and associate labels. The second was to identify the dominant elements of practice in the coded content, using investigator triangulation. The third stage an in-depth examination of each element.

Conclusions: Four elements associated with successful inclusion of children with significant disabilities: attitudes, parent-provider relationships, therapeutic intervention, and adaptations. Each child’s success in inclusion involved a large number of adults. Parents, therapists, and teachers need to work together to ensure inclusion is successful for that child and they need to be able to be flexible in the setting. To include children with significant disabilities in community settings requires looking into their services, goals, and placements to ensure the benefits for successful inclusion can go passed the early childhood years of the child.

The conclusion is valid of the study design. The researchers had a specific criterion they were looking for when starting this study. They reminded flexible to what they found and used triangulation to link all the data together to come to their conclusions. The settings used in this study were different but still the same where they were all inclusion settings. Each researcher took one at least one setting or more and no other researcher conducted interview/observations at that particular site, it did not change the perspective of someone else who did not know the situation (child). This helped to validate the conclusion based on this qualitative study.



references

Griffin, K.W., and Rafferty, Y. (2005). Benefits and Risks of Reverse Inclusion for Preschoolers with and without Disabilities: Perspectives of Parents and Providers. Journal of Early Intervention. 27. 173-192. doi: 10.1177/105381510502700305

Cross, A.F., Hutter-Pishgahi, L., Shelton, G., & Traub, E.K. (2004). Elements of Successful Inclusion for Children with Significant Disabilities. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 24(3) 169- 83.